Who Gets Credit for YOUR Success?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Silicon valley and the internet would not have existed without the US government taxing and spending.

And your support for that claim is.....? Is this like Obama "saving" jobs without being able to actually document or show any proof of that, or saying how bad things "would have been" without his policies?

As for "attending Public School" being in any way responsible for Steve Jobs success or some sign that Government Support creates success MORE than Stev Jobs skills and work does...../faceplam, we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree.

Funny, I bet alot of other kids went to school with Steve Jobs, and has access to this new burgeoning Internet, yet they didn't make 7 billion dollars. Hmm, maybe it was more than Public School and the existence of the Internet (which is not so cut and dry as "Govt. Made and Paid for it" as you'd like to make out) that was behind that success, eh?

So if it wasn't Public Schooling. And it wasn't the Internet. I wonder what it could have been.....

P.S. Staw Man is Straw. I'm not against Public Schools, for the recrod, and never have been. But my success in life sure as **** isn't due to them, and if they didn't exist, a private school alternative would have been just as good if not better frankly.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

There's no way Obama deserves the ball washing you're giving him Safety...

It's sad to see, tbqh...

[sackdance]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Silicon valley and the internet would not have existed without the US government taxing and spending.

Neither would have the brief, brilliant life of Solyndra.

[Frequent Flyer]

Steve Jobs didn't create Apple.

It was the halfwit collecting change at the tollbooth, exit 145 on the GSP.

[isired]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

...

I didn't read past that.

Yeah, it pretty much exposed the ridiculousness of this whole discussion. You're 100% right, of course, and it's not racist at all, but does it have anything to do with the 'culture' of Rwanda or Mongolia, rather the very things being debated here - infrastructure, education, government protection of properties, whether intellectual, physical or other, etc., etc., etc.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Funny, I bet alot of other kids went to school with Steve Jobs, and has access to this new burgeoning Internet, yet they didn't make 7 billion dollars.

I bet there are other kids in Rwanda or Mongolia who could have made 7 billion dollars if they weren't in Rwanda or Mongolia. Only a racist would disagree.
:what:



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Your understanding of human history is extremely flawed in my opinion. Human history is guided by those of us (not me, sadly) with greater skills, talents, work ethic and/or and abillities, i.e. the "successful".

Society is a product of the organization of strong and charismatic human beings, bringing together, and holding together, groups of lesser (loosly used here) human beings who followed them. That has been the case from the very beginning.

What you describe sounds like a utopian dream of a social collective with an almost conscious "mind" of it's own, the guiding hand of collective thought.

It's hooey in my view, a total fabrication and misunderstanding of our history as a species.

My description is a utopian dream of a social collective? Right...

My understanding of early human history is perfectly adequate. Of course there are followers and leaders, weaker and stronger members of society. You are making arguments that nobody is denying. For some reason you seem to be denying that a social construct and define societal roles are a factor in defining success for an individual member of said society.

We've been social animals from the onset. The skill set of one member of society complements other member's skill sets, and the society as a whole benefits. These are the very basics of societies and civilizations.

Again, if success was even partially due to "society" and "infrastucture" then that society and infrastructure would provide teh same base level of success to everyone who enjoys it, i.e. all of us. As you can plainly see, we still have many unsuccessful people despite all that society and infrastructure and a "base level" that is quite low, albeit much higher than many other nations who put more emphasis on society (collectiveism) and infrastructure.

I disagree. There are physically and mentally weaker members of society who will not attain relative success no matter how strong the society, system, or infrastructure.

What is your specific definition of "due?" There is a big difference between claiming a system and social construct as a cause rather than a factor and enabler of success.

This defense is tiresome.

I'm sorry my friend, but you do not get a free pass to promote ideals and political idealogy that is directly in line with the various communists/socialist/marxists who've come before you, and then simply dismiss anyone educated in history enough to see the parrallels of thinking and ideals and point them out.

I'm glad you can "see the parallels." When you look at the world through a very narrow lens, it's not surprising to see the quick jump to an extreme conclusion.

By your definition, having any form of society where individuals benefit from one another is nothing more than a mask for full blown communism and marxism. If seeing the world through reason makes me a crypto-communist in your eyes so be it. Reminds me of a certain rhetoric.

[shakin318]

I would love for Obama to stick with this position. Finally, the anti-capitalist veil is dropped so completely that even the MSM can't ignore it. Obama has unequivocally thrown his hat in the ring with the OWS crowd, despising and demonizing the "makers" in the hopes that he'll get enough votes from the "takers" to win him another 4-year reign of tyranny.

[Warfish]

Appreciate the reply Para, I don't want to be rude, but it's just not worth bothering over at this point.

You support what the President says as you see and understand it, I do not support what the President said as I see it and understand it's meaning and intent. Since we cannot even agree as to what he meant or what his words mean, they're little chance we will on anything else. Knocking down the various repetative all-or-nothing straw men, swiping aside the usual liberal "you're just too stupid, or unreasonable" slights, debating history and social constucts that we clearly don't agree on to start with, or explaining that being one of JI's few real policy-moderates is not a "narrow view" just gets us further afield of the topic at hand, debating what we think of each other and not the comments or their meaning.

Agree to disagree. No one here is changing their vote because of this, one way, or the other.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You support what the President says as you see and understand it, I do not support what the President said as I see it and understand it's meaning and intent.

Not really. I thought his words were undisciplined at best, and I haven't really discussed him specifically in this thread at all.

Just calling out over-exaggeration and over-reaction when I see it.

Agree to disagree. No one here is changing their vote because of this, one way, or the other.

My goal is not to change votes but to have an engaging and thought provoking conversation.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

Not really. I haven't really discussed him specifically in this thread at all.

/facepalm

Originally Posted by parafly

...........but to have an engaging and thought provoking conversation.

Best of luck.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

And your support for that claim is.....? Is this like Obama "saving" jobs without being able to actually document or show any proof of that, or saying how bad things "would have been" without his policies?

The semi-conductor industry of the 1950's - the origins of Silicon Valley - was subsidized almost entirely by the US government for it's first decade and a half.
The semi-conductor industry gave us the micro-chip.

Not to mention, American copyright laws and infrastructure made it possible for these heavily subsidized industries to eventually branch out into more consumer based, private business.

As for the internet, it was a DOD program. But you already knew that right?

[SafetyBlitz]

!

Here's the guy talking -

Steve Blank is a Silicon Valley-based retired serial entrepreneur, founding and/or part of 8 startup companies in California’s Silicon Valley. A prolific educator, thought leader and writer on Customer Development for Startups, Blank teaches, refines, writes and blogs on “Customer Development,” a rigorous methodology he developed to bring the “scientific method” to the typically chaotic, seemingly disorganized startup process.[1]
Now teaching Entrepreneurship at three major Universities and the National Science Foundation Innovation Corps (I-Corps), Blank co-founded his first of eight startups after several years repairing fighter plane electronics in Thailand during the Vietnam War, followed by several years of defense electronics work for U.S. intelligence agencies in “undisclosed locations.”
Blank's first book, "The Four Steps to the Epiphany," detailed the Customer Development process and remains required reading among entrepreneurs, investors, and established companies alike, when the focus is optimizing a startup’s chances for scalability and success. Blank views entrepreneurship as a practice that can be managed rather than purely an art form to be experienced.[2]
"The Startup Owner’s Manual" was Blank's second book and is a step-by-step guide to building a successful startup, offering practical advice for any startup founder, entrepreneur, investor or educator.
His Customer Development methodology launched the lean startup movement. It is rooted on startups "getting out of the building," talking to customers and using that feedback to develop and refine their product.

[Frequent Flyer]

Originally Posted by shakin318

I would love for Obama to stick with this position. Finally, the anti-capitalist veil is dropped so completely that even the MSM can't ignore it. Obama has unequivocally thrown his hat in the ring with the OWS crowd, despising and demonizing the "makers" in the hopes that he'll get enough votes from the "takers" to win him another 4-year reign of tyranny.

You nailed it.

[brady's a catcher]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

The semi-conductor industry of the 1950's - the origins of Silicon Valley - was subsidized almost entirely by the US government for it's first decade and a half.
The semi-conductor industry gave us the micro-chip.

Not to mention, American copyright laws and infrastructure made it possible for these heavily subsidized industries to eventually branch out into more consumer based, private business.

As for the internet, it was a DOD program. But you already knew that right?

In both cases the govt, out of their desire to create future-jobs and billionaires, worked slavishly to develop them? Or was there something very significant in it for the federal govt, and a few people were later able to take advantage of this emerging technology, work hard and were smart enough to be very, very successful?

Someone else invented the wheel also, so Henry Ford was just in the right place at the right time?

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

The semi-conductor industry of the 1950's - the origins of Silicon Valley - was subsidized almost entirely by the US government for it's first decade and a half.
The semi-conductor industry gave us the micro-chip.

Not to mention, American copyright laws and infrastructure made it possible for these heavily subsidized industries to eventually branch out into more consumer based, private business.

As for the internet, it was a DOD program. But you already knew that right?

Please provide proof these inventions would not have been created at some point anyway, and that they wouldn't have been created at a much more efficient cost than the gov't paid . . .

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by brady's a catcher

In both cases the govt, out of their desire to create future-jobs and billionaires, worked slavishly to develop them? Or was there something very significant in it for the federal govt, and a few people were later able to take advantage of this emerging technology, work hard and were smart enough to be very, very successful?

Someone else invented the wheel also, so Henry Ford was just in the right place at the right time?

Well first off, the wheel has been around for several thousand years. I don't think "the wheel" is the most integral part in the invention of the automobile. I think the combustion engine and mass production probably have more to do with what makes automobile an automobile and not a wheel barrow or bicycle...

And I don't think the government invested in these programs to make billionaires, it was for the "collective good" (right here I'd like to give a shout out to Warfish), i.e. in this particular case - the collective good of staying ahead of the Soviet Union in the Cold War arms race.

But that initial investment, via R&D grants to Stanford and Berkley and direct contracting to private firms, created the opportunity for private businesses in the high tech industry to thrive.

Originally Posted by OCCH

Please provide proof these inventions would not have been created at some point anyway, and that they wouldn't have been created at a much more efficient cost than the gov't paid . . .

The last 20 minutes of that youtube video I posted should shed some light on that.

And as to your point about "they would have been invented anyway", the point is, they were pioneered here, and Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are American billionaires.

Essentially, we'll never know "what could have been invented in the semiconductor/microchip industry" if there was no government involvement, because we can only go by what actually happened - which happened to be government investment and contracting that gave birth to Silicon Valley, which in turn paved the way for some of the greatest entrepreneurs in American, and indeed, world history.

And how about the internet - a government funded program gave us the internet. Also a government run program built the hubble telescope and landed on the moon - as a side note, 50 years later, the space industry is seeing successful private companies (SpaceX) build upon what NASA pioneered.

[Ernie]

Who paid the taxes for the Government to sponsor the original research? The businessman, not the guy on Food Stamps and the public dole. Who paid taxes to fund the interstate highways? The businessman, not the "entitled".

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Ernie

Who paid the taxes for the Government to sponsor the original research? The businessman, not the guy on Food Stamps and the public dole. Who paid taxes to fund the interstate highways? The businessman, not the "entitled".

Thank you for pointing that out. That's best example for why we need taxes.

Do you want to lookup what were the tax rates when we subsidized the semi-conductor industry, landed on the moon and built the infrastructure for this country?

[brady's a catcher]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Well first off, the wheel has been around for several thousand years. I don't think "the wheel" is the most integral part in the invention of the automobile. I think the combustion engine and mass production probably have more to do with what makes automobile an automobile and not a wheel barrow or bicycle...

And I don't think the government invested in these programs to make billionaires, it was for the "collective good" (right here I'd like to give a shout out to Warfish), i.e. in this particular case - the collective good of staying ahead of the Soviet Union in the Cold War arms race.

.

To the first paragraph, while no one is disputing the integral roles the engine and mass production played, a car will not function without wheels, so why does Clung the caveman deserve at least some credit?

I don't think R&D for security, intelligence and military based intellectual property is all about warm and fuzzy "collective good" but I'm fairly cynical.

These projects were funded to expand the power of the federal govt and the USA as a whole, not to raise the standard of living for all, imo.

Again, some people have been able to turn them into wealth, many others into lucrative careers, through hard work, and in some cases, a little luck at times. Still, I give much more credit to the individual who figures out how to maximize the situation than the ones who don't. Simple as that.